holograham

Not a ton of details in your post but I will attempt to decipher what appears to be the problem from a tech dev manager perspective

1. Project time - were expectations communicated up front? What estimation methods are you using? Agile scrum for cadences/daily reporting? Your post reads that you did heads down work for awhile. That is a recipe for disaster for a junior dev. Daily checkins (or at least 3x a week) is the norm for my organization.

2. Requirements - see frequent check ins above - as well as what mushufasa comments as well. A HUGE part of great modern development in enterprise is constantly iterating requirements and getting feedback. This is something I specifically sit down with new college hires. This is not college anymore with a well bounded problem - you have unlimited problem space and you need to define boundaries constantly. One of my favorite quotes is: "the difference between a good developer and a great developer is that a great developer knows when NOT to code"

3. Design decisions - does your group have a design review / peer review process? A junior dev should always have a senior dev review code prior to check in. Your check in's should be frequent (daily is common but there is debate on exact frequency). It should not be weeks particularly for a junior dev.

4. Perhaps your most egregious error is your comment that you should have checked other projects. I assume youre working for a large-ish company. It is imperative you do not re-invent the wheel for every assignment. Particularly for the "glue" or standard pattern parts (which usually amounts to 80% of the work). This is something your manager ideally makes explicit early on (perhaps this was the meeting). I have had lots of frustrating convos where the developer took weeks to solve something that was a known pattern or solution if they just went to the firm's stack overflow or checked another similar projects github.

5. Managers are people too they have off days and can be frustrated with a million other pressures going around. I have definitely had days like that and likely took it out unfairly on a junior dev. More-so if this is your managers boss who likely doesnt deal with junior dev's day-to-day. His/Her expectations are different.

this is only really possible in a very controlled ecosystem. Apple has this down well but MSFT does not. For example for this recent patch certain (major) antivirus vendors rendered computers unusable with the update. What if MSFT force updated everyone and bricked 20+% of windows users? Not a good strategy.

this ^

Value is value -- for sure

but Value derived from luck of the draw (e.g. Norway's current citizens banking on their ancestors settling in a land rich in oil).

Frame it this way -- would Saudi Arabia be as wealthy as it is today without Oil? Do you think their social and political structure would have produced equivalent wealth as their oil companies?

simple sure but let's talk about what it would take to give a meaningful dividend to all americans

If we used a conservative 3.5% average return to give $1,000 USD for each American (~325M) you need nearly 10 Trillion dollars in this fund or over half of our yearly GDP.

Now keeping in mind this would need to be generated from a tax on some good/service/capital which obviously has a cost component at it's base. Just getting the initial 10Trillion in a fund would be ridiculously hard. Now add to that the fact that 1k is a pittance and figuring out a true basic income -- this is wayyyy more complex.

I'd like to point out a HUGE fallacy in this "simple" plan -- it only works in low population high natural capital resource areas. Alaska and Norway happen to be relatively remote/cold places with an abundance natural gas/oil. Norway's 1T dollar fund would be comical at US scale.

have you ever worked in a government setting? I would hardly call them the epitome of a highly functioning workforce. Laziness and waste is rampant.

Why is this trait desirable vs. teaching self reliance?

Philosophically I personally dont see why the obligation should be on the children to support the parents. The parents choose to have children not the other way around.

I love my parents but do not feel any requirement by them to care for them. They have saved for retirement just as I am. If people choose to not save then their poverty in their older years is a problem they brought upon themselves.

TLDR: 60% DNA shared with humans + 4 chromesomes for easy mutation tracking + 2 week reproductive cycle for fast generation studying + easy to house/keep alive = great lab specimens to test genetic mutations

the article doesnt mention this but I will ask ... does sephora attract more female candidates because it is a very popular makeup brand?

Or perhaps do they also get less male applicants because it is a female dominant brand?

"“Everyone spoke,” she says, “and felt comfortable offering opinions on anything from e-commerce to a shade of blush.”"

For me as a male I would not feel comfortable offering my opinions on a shade of blush. I am not offended by this -- I just have zero experience with blush.

Am I sexist because I wouldnt want to work there but also can see why women would be more successful there in tech-centric roles?

my dad is a chef - he taught me 2 rules for wine:

1. Drink what you like 2. You will always sound like a pretentious douchebag talking about wine

I find these to be universally true.

you are confusing "work" with "value"

it is possible to do hard "work" and produce zero value. Example: digging a large hole in the middle of the desert.

Conversely it is easy to do little "work" and produce tremendous value Example: writing a script in 15 mins that automates hours of tedious CSV combinations and data grooming (I used this example bc I once did this and saved about 15 weekly hours of a highly paid financial analyst's time)

So now we are clear on work != value in the real world

I'll quickly tackle your investment income -- that was a risk buying 20k worth of Telsa. That easily could have gone to zero as an early stage tech growth stock. When buying a stock you are putting your money on a bet that the company will provide more value to the economy. When your bet pays off it is because the company is doing better and presumably, if following all relevant laws, providing enhanced value to the economy.

There is no law of physics in economics. In fact this thinking is practically dangerous and at the least fosters the wrong attitude towards success. Your success is not someone else's loss. In fact in a market economy, your success will ALWAYS be another's gain since they voluntarily gave you money for a good/service they couldnt do as efficiently as you could.

Economics is NOT a zero sum game. You can quite literally create value from nothing and grow the proverbial pie of value in the world. If you work in programming you realize this quickly.

The downside to a market economy is that work and value will never be a fair ratio. While in some ways unfortunate the more unfortunate alternative is everyone produces equal value from doing equal work. But take a minute to think critically about how that would be possible. I'll give you a hint -- innovation and ingenuity would plummet to zero.

You are conflating fairness vs. justice. The world is far from fair -- genetics, place of birth, medical conditions, accidents, etc will always exist like you mention.

The moral/civil question is what is the role of government in an unfair world?

Most governments opt to head down the justice route predominately (e.g. the US's Justice System holding 1/3 of our government powers) while creating a myriad of "fairness" regulations (e.g. welfare programs). The ultimate problem with this approach is people will rarely agree on what is fair. There is no set definition and wants/desires change over time -- even needs do to (like needing a cell phone now vs 20 years ago). This ever evolving definition of fairness is what ensures this debate will rage on indefinitely.

+1 for this. Libertarians are not against laws. In fact contract enforcement is arguably the most important law.